tpo-17
The author enumerates some possible outcomes of human population growth to indicate that the number of birds is in danger. The lecturer, however, refutes the aforementioned assertion by providing some counterclaims, and she firmly believes that the supports are not compelling.
First, the reading asserts that due to the augmentation in the number of human settlements, including homes, malls, and so forth, birds’ natural habitats have been disappearing. Nevertheless, the professor opposes the statement by mentioning other aspects of this issue. She argues that although urban areas pose a serious threat to some kinds of birds, they are a better zone for some others such as pigeons and hawks. For instance, Hawks prey on pigeons moving on the streets. Therefore, some birds are shrinking, but others are increasing.
Second, the author claims that agriculture growing, which is a result of human population, leads to annihilating of birds’ habitat. On the contrary, the speaker concedes the point that agriculture has been increasingly improving and developing, but it does not necessarily mean that it destroys birds’ homes. She adds that thanks to the introduction of new crops which yield more food, there is no indispensable need for destroying more regions.
Third, according to the reading, releasing a lot of pesticides into the environment, human beings reduce the population of birds, not only because of eating poisoned insects and materials, but also due to the negative impact of these substances on the reproduction of birds. Conversely, the lecturer rejects the viewpoint since she thinks the projection is incorrect. In fact, two substantial changes occurred. Besides to introducing less pesticide, there is a growing trend for creating crops which are not attractive to pests. Hence, they do not harm birds at all.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, conversely, first, hence, however, nevertheless, second, so, therefore, third, for instance, in fact, such as, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 30.3222958057 115% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 5.01324503311 219% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1569.0 1373.03311258 114% => OK
No of words: 288.0 270.72406181 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.44791666667 5.08290768461 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11953428781 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.04717719695 2.5805825403 118% => OK
Unique words: 177.0 145.348785872 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.614583333333 0.540411800872 114% => OK
syllable_count: 470.7 419.366225166 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 5.0 1.51434878587 330% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.7195374013 49.2860985944 123% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.6 110.228320801 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.2 21.698381199 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.73333333333 7.06452816374 138% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.297689753488 0.272083759551 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0850981061672 0.0996497079465 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0719918033661 0.0662205650399 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.160667073529 0.162205337803 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0435839755902 0.0443174109184 98% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 13.3589403974 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 53.8541721854 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.33 12.2367328918 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.57 8.42419426049 114% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 63.6247240618 143% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.